Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Digital Privacy Tracking Devices topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves narrowly tailored change to CalECPA to let victims consent to inspection of planted tracking/surveillance devices
Summary
AB 358 would allow law enforcement to inspect tracking or surveillance devices found in a victims private space with that victims consent; the Assembly Public Safety Committee passed the bill as amended.
Assemblymember Mike Alvarez presented AB 3 58, the TRACE amendment, to clarify the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act (CalECPA) so that survivors who find unauthorized tracking or surveillance devices in private spaces can consent to an immediate inspection by law enforcement.
Alvarez said the bill is narrow and victim-centered: it permits inspection of devices located in a persons residence, automobile, or personal property with the consent of the person who found the device, when the device is reasonably believed to have been used for surreptitious recording or tracking. Joel Madero, Deputy District Attorney with the San Diego County District Attorney's Office and director of a technology crimes task force, testified that delays to obtain warrants can enable perpetrators to remotely erase data and obstruct investigations.
Opponents including the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation argued the change undermines CalECPA's warrant rule and could sweep in devices such as phones; they emphasized existing warrant procedures, emergency exceptions, and the Riley Supreme Court standard for cell phones. ACLU attorney Jake Snow said law enforcement can usually obtain warrants quickly and that emergency exceptions and existing warrant practices already permit rapid searches when truly necessary.
The committee chair proposed, and the author accepted, a revision to explicitly limit the exception to a “tracking or surveillance device.” After brief additional public comment and debate about scope and definitions, the committee passed AB 358 as amended to the committee referenced in the roll call.
Committee members who supported the measure said it clarifies a legal ambiguity that has impeded investigations of surreptitious devices found by victims and noted the language does not authorize warrantless searches generally for phones or other devices with strong privacy interests.
